On the fundamental problem of conceptualization, and cladistics

The fundamental problem of conceptualization is that reality in every moment is ambiguous between generics and specifics (which we call "process" and "pattern", respectively).

This problem means that if we assume that reality actually is unambiguous in every moment, then only one of them (ie, generics or specifics) can be real in a generic sense, whereas the other instead has to be paradoxically contradictory (ie, ambiguous between specific instances of the other). The only alternative is to assume that reality is ambiguous.

Now, whereas specifics rationally can be ambiguous between generics (it is just instances of different entities of a kind, or of different kinds of a specific kind), generics rationally can't be ambiguous between specifics, since it is instances of paradoxical contradiction.

It means that we have to interpret reality in terms of specifics and generics to resolve the fundamental ambiguity of reality, and of these, specifics rationally have to be considered real whereas generics thus have to be paradoxically contradictory. This solution means that conceptualization has to be ambiguous in relation to reality.

The only alternative is to assume that reality is ambiguous (as we concluded above), but since this alternative in a conceptual sense conflates specifics with generics, it is actually paradoxically contradictory in a conceptual sense.

Together, these facts mean that talking about reality in itself excludes the option to be unambiguous. Instead, they leave us with the only options to be either (1) consistent (nominalism) or (2) consistently inconsistent (realism), whereof the former is ambiguous in relation to reality and the latter is paradoxically contradictory.

Cladistics actually chooses the alternative to assume that reality is ambiguous, although the ambiguity is disguised as "unambiguous processes" (ie, clades), and does thus land in paradoxical contradiction. The meaning of this "paradoxical contradiction" is just that it is consistently contradictory (ie, can't escape contradiction).